Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open source AI must win

opensourceaimustwin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 538 posts

Re: Open source AI must win

#41

Post by stale2002 »

planb wrote: post #8
glerk wrote: post #3

it is inevitable that it will win information wants to be free

This is not about information but about capital. Even if we had free access to the weights of the best models in the world: who would be able to run them?

Well it would be anyone that has access to a datacenter to run them. Which is a ton of companies. And those companies will rent out access to those models. And if they do something stupid to screw over consumers, well the whole point is that there would be a bunch of companies that you could use instead.

Re: Open source AI must win

#42

Post by tonyhart7 »

george_max wrote: post #2

With open-weight AI, there might not be an incentive to put large sums of capital towards training / research. There might be a donation fund of some sorts, but it certainly won't reach the level of fundraising that the frontier labs are receiving. Because of this, I think it might not be possible to have AI *only* open-weight; major players like OpenAI, Anthropic, Google will likely stay for good, with better models…

the moat is in hardware, without capital intensive acquisition how tf they going to get that money ?????

I learn it hard from prusa 3d printer open model

Re: Open source AI must win

#43

Post by george_max »

malux85 wrote: post #37
gslepak wrote: post #23

Where does Anthropic or OpenAI winning leave us? Dependents of an AI-megacorp for our "facts"? Our software? Our work? It's possible these companies will become everyone's boss, and will dictate to everyone what everyone is allowed to work on, think, say, do, believe, etc. Before Big Tech springs that trap, we must support and divert resources to open models.

> Dependents of an AI-megacorp for our "facts"? Our software? Our work? It's worse than this, it's more like our thinking. There's already plummetting math grades [1], handing over our thinking to AI megacorps where there's likely to be a monopoly or duopoly is an incredibly dangerous thing for humanity as a whole. [1] https://www.dailycal.org/news/campus/academics/failing-grade...

If humanity is over-reliant on frontier labs' models to perform work, the result is a dependence on the actual intelligence of these models -- not on human intelligence. This could be a small reason, on top of many others, why investors are throwing hundreds of billions of dollars a bit "carelessly" to these labs. It's fascinating seeing the models do the "hard work" (the deep, challenging thinking) for you.

The conundrum which tricks me though - is this a net negative or a positive? If humans are less intelligent, but their output is 2-3 times more intelligent (with AI), what's the result? At what point do we, as humans, stop comprehending anything and give all intelligent work to the neural nets?

And if that does happen, could we live in a society where no work, or at least a significantly less amount of work, is needed? To me, it seems like a dystopian net positive.

It might seem far-fetched to ask these, but I think these questions are getting more prevalent by the day.

Re: Open source AI must win

#44

Post by palisade »

I've been contemplating a decentralized model training system for some time using volunteer machines that we all contribute. But, it is astronomically difficult. The communication speeds are untenable.

And, there is the issue of data poisoning from untrusted nodes. I've almost cracked that last issue with a self-healing checkpointed rollback system that doesn't have to throw out anything that follows the corrupt datum.

But, I'm just one person with an idea and I don't have infinite funds to make this happen. This isn't a small project.

Maybe there would be interest in something like this, now that entire frontier labs are being banned from making further progress.

The total power of all GPUs on the planet dwarf their capabilities, if we had a way to harness them in a distributed way efficiently. We wouldn't be able to train a Fable as fast as them, but eventually having access is better than never having access.

Re: Open source AI must win

#45

Post by mufufu »

bbor wrote: post #36
george_max wrote: post #2

With open-weight AI, there might not be an incentive to put large sums of capital towards training / research. There might be a donation fund of some sorts, but it certainly won't reach the level of fundraising that the frontier labs are receiving. Because of this, I think it might not be possible to have AI *only* open-weight; major players like OpenAI, Anthropic, Google will likely stay for good, with better models…

Which is the nearterm future that we must demand: a stop to the amounts of capital flowing to ASI research. Join me, Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI’s-founding-charter in saying the obvious, y’all; Pause AI, now. It should be clear by now that there’s a whole universe of work to do with the models we have today, from studying to securing to ‘harness’ing. There are tons of economic benefits to be reaped already, if appl…

Lives of trillions?

Re: Open source AI must win

#46

Post by thomasjeff1 »

palisade wrote: post #44

I've been contemplating a decentralized model training system for some time using volunteer machines that we all contribute. But, it is astronomically difficult. The communication speeds are untenable. And, there is the issue of data poisoning from untrusted nodes. I've almost cracked that last issue with a self-healing checkpointed rollback system that doesn't have to throw out anything that follows the corrupt datu…

I believe we are not the only ones

Re: Open source AI must win

#47

Post by dartharva »

malux85 wrote: post #37
gslepak wrote: post #23

Where does Anthropic or OpenAI winning leave us? Dependents of an AI-megacorp for our "facts"? Our software? Our work? It's possible these companies will become everyone's boss, and will dictate to everyone what everyone is allowed to work on, think, say, do, believe, etc. Before Big Tech springs that trap, we must support and divert resources to open models.

> Dependents of an AI-megacorp for our "facts"? Our software? Our work? It's worse than this, it's more like our thinking. There's already plummetting math grades [1], handing over our thinking to AI megacorps where there's likely to be a monopoly or duopoly is an incredibly dangerous thing for humanity as a whole. [1] https://www.dailycal.org/news/campus/academics/failing-grade...

Indeed, for work and software most are already beholden to Microsoft and Google. This is something wayy more.

Re: Open source AI must win

#48

Post by nl »

em-bee wrote: post #9

what is Open Source AI even? to me Open Source, like Free Software, is something i can run on my own computer. any AI system that runs on a computer that i do not control is by my definition not Open Source. so how then can Open Source AI win? it can't even compete. even if we collect enough money and create a dedicated Open Source organization to build and run a community owned AI datacenter, how does that help? so…

When kubernetes was released there were very few people who could run it, and even less that could run it usefully.

Right now there a few people who can run a 1T model at home, even less who can run a 5T model and probably single digits who can run a 10T model.

But if an open source 10T model was available you can be sure people would find new ways to quantize it, new ways to configure hardware and and new ways to think about problems that would make it useful.

1T+ models (Deepseek v4, Kimi K2.6 etc) are available as open weights now, and for ~$5000-$10000 you can run them usefully at home. 2 years ago no on was contemplating that.

$250K to run a 10T model might be possible now. There are many companies that will pay that, and that will push the tools and techniques downwards for the rest of us.

Re: Open source AI must win

#49

Post by cocoa19 »

thewebguyd wrote: post #18
george_max wrote: post #2

With open-weight AI, there might not be an incentive to put large sums of capital towards training / research. There might be a donation fund of some sorts, but it certainly won't reach the level of fundraising that the frontier labs are receiving. Because of this, I think it might not be possible to have AI *only* open-weight; major players like OpenAI, Anthropic, Google will likely stay for good, with better models…

I think the same, but I also think that local AI is actually inevitable, even if not open source models. I wouldn't be surprised to see OpenAI and others release an on-prem product. Whether that's effectively an appliance rack, or some other form, people (large companies) are going to want to run inference locally for data sovereignty & cost controls. Especially if we get to a point where companies want AI integrated…

We already have this. We don't need Mythos to categorize images on my phone. A small dedicated model would do.

Re: Open source AI must win

#50

Post by singpolyma3 »

em-bee wrote: post #9

what is Open Source AI even? to me Open Source, like Free Software, is something i can run on my own computer. any AI system that runs on a computer that i do not control is by my definition not Open Source. so how then can Open Source AI win? it can't even compete. even if we collect enough money and create a dedicated Open Source organization to build and run a community owned AI datacenter, how does that help? so…

LLMs that you can run locally on hardware that is not out of range to acquire is already a thing for some time.
Post reply on HN